Double Effect, Methotrexate, and Ectopic Pregnancy

[Seatuck]

Thank you for the link. I read it. Did you?

We cannot forget that it can be a serious moral problem to recklessly risk your life.

Yes it can be. But it can also be heroic virtue for a Mother to risk her life to give life to her child. St Gianna Molla and others come to mind.

 

[Seatuck]

I just wanted to mention that I have been "google"ing the possibilty of embryonic survival for tubal implantations. I have found absolutely nothing to support that idea. On the contrary, many of the sites I have viewed state the opposite; that it is impossible and has never been done. I simply don’t believe that some anonymous doctor in an unnamed hospital pulled it off, many times apparently, almost a hundred years ago and catholic hospitals can’t do it today. I can’t verify that any of this actually happened. The only sources I have on this scenario are from catholic apologetics websites like the one cited.

All of these incredible scenarios are not reality for the poor women that actually suffer this tragedy. In real life a woman is told that she has an ectopic pregnancy. The doctors remedy is MTX if it is not too late. If a woman refuses it then that’s it. The doctor will tell her to come back when her tube ruptures and she is in agonizing pain. Hopefully she can be admitted to surgery on time before the hemmoraging kills her. Surgery to take out the tube is not an option because her insurance views it as unnecessary surgery. So unless she has thousands of dollars in cash, it isn’t even an option.

This is the real world. While many people will cite unsubstantiated events from 100 years ago and give other “what if” possibilities that are not realistic, those who actually suffer this condition are given no such luxary. They make the best decision they can based on their conscience and since Rome hasn’t ruled on the specific treatment options available, they are free to do so while remaining in good standing with the church.The vast majority of women who go through this condition would have done anything to save their children and mourn the loss of thier child. But there remains those who, under the guise of being pro-life, will call these women excommunicated baby killers. How very heroic of them.

Surgery to take out the tube is not an option because her insurance views it as unnecessary surgery.

Can you give me some more infomation on that? In the hospitals I have worked in this was covered by the insurance of the patients who had insurance.

 

[VARC]

HMO’s will not provide what they deem to be unnecessary surgery. They will not cover surgery that cost thousands of dollars to accomodate religious belief when they can treat it with a shot. Surgery only becomes necessary right before or after the rupture. At that point, they will admit her to surgery but there may be a substantial deductible for having refused intial treatment, assuming she survives of course. Trust me, I’m not making this up. They will let you die to save a few bucks

 

[fix]

VARC:

All of these incredible scenarios are not reality for the poor women that actually suffer this tragedy. In real life a woman is told that she has an ectopic pregnancy. The doctors remedy is MTX if it is not too late. If a woman refuses it then that’s it. The doctor will tell her to come back when her tube ruptures and she is in agonizing pain. Hopefully she can be admitted to surgery on time before the hemmoraging kills her. Surgery to take out the tube is not an option because her insurance views it as unnecessary surgery. So unless she has thousands of dollars in cash, it isn’t even an option.

How does what you claim support the notion use of MTX is morally licit? Is morality simply pragmatism?

 

[TAS2000]

So why are embryos too delicate to transfer from a tube to the uterous for an ectopic, but NOT too delicate to transfer from a petrie dish or test tube to a uterous for IVF?

 

[VARC]

I am not not arguing for pragmatism. My OP was stating that the double effect principle can apply to MTX use to treat ectopic pregnancy if the trophoplast(cells that will develop into the placenta) is distinguished from the embryo(cells that will become the fetus). I was simply illustrating how this issue can mean truly life or death for well meaning innocent women. People are under the illusion that they can simply opt for surgery and all is well. They don’t realize that they’re putting a terrible ultimatum before these women: risk death or be excommunicated. Where’s the love?

 

[VARC]

So why are embryos too delicate to transfer from a tube to the uterous for an ectopic, but NOT too delicate to transfer from a petrie dish or test tube to a uterous for IVF?

Trust me TAS2000, it is impossible. When an embryo implants it bonds to whatever it implants into. To transfer it would mean ripping it apart. In a dish, it doesn’t implant into anything so you just pick it up and put it in. If a person doesn’t accept that it is impossible to to save an embryo in a tubal ectopic pregnancy then they’re living in the land of Oz.

 

[fix]

I am not not arguing for pragmatism. My OP was stating that the double effect principle can apply to MTX use to treat ectopic pregnancy if the trophoplast(cells that will develop into the placenta) is distinguished from the embryo(cells that will become the fetus). I was simply illustrating how this issue can mean truly life or death for well meaning innocent women. Your response to them, quite frankly, is TS.

You are arguing that MTX is morally licit. Then, you bring up the scenario you have and try to pass it off as licit simply because it is urgent.

I posted a link from a moralist that argues, quite well, that the trophoblast is not the disease.

 

[VARC]

The trophoplast may not be a disease per say but the trophoplast itself is certainly a danger to the mother’s health. If the trophoplast is of no use to the embryo, then it is a moral good to destroy it so the mother can be saved.

 

[VARC]

I fail to see the analogy? In the case of ectopic pregnancy are you saying the baby is an unjust aggressor?

I didn’t get a chance to respond to this post. The analogy is as follows:

embryo=people in the plane
trophoplast= the plane itself

I couln’t help but notice that you didn’t answer the qusetion. Is it morally licit to shoot down the hijacked planes on 9/11?

 

[fix]

The trophoplast may not be a disease per say but the trophoplast itself is certainly a danger to the mother’s health.

Is the trophoblast acting as it was not intended? The pathology is with the tube, in this case.

If the trophoplast is of no use to the embryo, then it is a moral good to destroy it so the mother can be saved.

Who says it is of no value? It seems to be performimg the function as intended.

 

[VARC]

In the case of tubal ectopic pregnancy the trophoplast certainly does not perform its funtion correctly because the embryo cannot derive enough nutrition from the tube for it to be brought to term. You act as if all is well when you know that it is not.

 

[fix]

In the case of tubal ectopic pregnancy the trophoplast certainly does not perform its funtion correctly because the embryo cannot derive its nutrition from the tube. You act as if all is well when you know that it is not.

The problem is not the trophoblast. The problem is the tube.

 

[VARC]

But the trophoplast is useless an any event. In the tube the trophoplast will not provide enough nutrition to bring a baby a to term. It abosulutely will not. The embryo cannot be moved either. There is nothing that can be done to save the embryo. To not see that is to not tell the tree from the leaves.

There is an overemphasis on the letter of the law and no thought as to the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law against abortion being that embryos are people too and they must be treated like people. In the case of tubal ectopic pregnancy nothing can be done to save the child. You demand that the mother must die too if she can’t aford surgery. The ironic thing is that you claim this is the pro-life position. It boggles my mind.

 

[VARC]

Also did you read post 49. I am interested in your response.

 

[fix]

But the trophoplast is useless an any event.

It is acting as intended, but in the wrong place. The pathology will the tube if it becomes inflammed and ruptures.

In the tube the trophoplast will not provide enough nutrition to bring a baby a to term.

Because the tube is the problem.

It abosulutely will not. The embryo cannot be moved either. There is nothing that can be done to save the embryo. To not see that is to not tell the tree from the leaves.

I agree at this time there is no way to save the embryo, but that does not mean we are free to kill the embryo.

There is an overemphasis on the letter of the law and no thought as to the spirit of the law.

Why are the two at odds?

The spirit of the law against abortion being that embryos are people too and they must be treated like people. In the case of tubal ectopic pregnancy nothing can be done to save the child.

Again, that does not justify direct abortion.

You demand that the mother must die too if she can’t aford surgery.

I said no such thing.

The ironic thing is that you claim this is the pro-life position. It boggles my mind.

You want to define the debate as you desire, place arbitrary boundaries, self define terms, then claim those against your position are illogical.

 

[fix]

Also did you read post 49. I am interested in your response.

A hijacked plane has an unjust aggressor and it headed to kill more people. Self defense, which is based in double effect, says it is licit to shoot down the plane.

An ectopic pregnancy has two innocent people, no aggressors. The goal is two work to save both lives. That one cannot be saved is an unintended consequence, but we cannot actively seek to kill the baby.

 

[VARC]

You still haven’t acknowleged that a trophoplast in the tube will ultimately not serve its function to bring the baby to term and I find this to be avoiding the issue. You say that you don’t demand that woman must die who can’t afford surgery but what is it you’re proposing. Your “logic” in the real world leads to needless death.

 

[VARC]

A hijacked plane has an unjust aggressor and it headed to kill more people. Self defense, which is based in double effect, says it is licit to shoot down the plane.

An ectopic pregnancy has two innocent people, no aggressors. The goal is two work to save both lives. That one cannot be saved is an unintended consequence, but we cannot actively seek to kill the baby.

And again, MTX isn’t intended to kill the baby(no woman in this situation intends to kill her baby any more then a F-18 pilot intends to kill the hostages) only it’s trophoplast which will not serve to provide nutrtion to the embryo for long because of its circumstance which also presents a grave threat to the mother.

 

[fix]

You still haven’t acknowleged that a trophoplast in the tube will ultimately not serve its function to bring the baby to term and I find this to be avoiding the issue.

Again, is the trophoblast not functioning properly? The problem is the tube.

You say that you don’t demand that woman must die who can’t afford surgery but what is it you’re proposing.

No, that is what you propose. Kinda like those who claim abortion is needed because of rape or incest or something like that.

Your “logic” in the real world leads to needless death.

No, my logic obeys the eternal law of the Supreme law-giver. Your logic makes the ends justify the means.

You’d better pray this does’t happen to you or someone you love. I doubt you’re your tone will be as cold and calcualting.

Nonsense. I do not make moral decsions based on emotion or pragmatism. That would lead me to relativism.